<signed> description is misleading

[abrooks63]

The description is "(signature) contains the closing salutation, etc., appended to a foreword, dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text". This seems too broad and misleading when we already have "(salutation) contains a salutation or greeting prefixed to a foreword, dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text, or the salutation in the closing of a letter, preface, etc.". Perhaps the distinction between the two can be more explicit with being more specifically for names signed/signatures?

[ebeshero]

@abrooks63 Thanks for this revision suggestion. I agree that the phrasing "closing salutation" seems a bit too vague when we intend to indicate the word that we do include in the <gloss> on this element: a signature. I suspect it's broadly worded in order to accompany a very wide range of ways that a document might be "signed".

It's certainly true that <signed> has the exact same content model as <salute>, which suggests that we should probably include in the description some indication of how this is intended for a salutation that contains some kind of signing of a name to associate with the act of writing.

[ebeshero]

@martinascholger Could this also be helpful for the mentoring session?